It’s more honest, and a retvrn to its original name. Time to drop the pretense. antelope-popcorn

    • SevenSkalls [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 days ago

      I don’t see what’s wrong with that headline. It seems like a pretty straightforward telling of the facts. Isn’t that what a headline is supposed to be? Is it a lie or something I don’t get? It doesn’t seem to be implying anything good or bad about the name change, so I don’t get the problem.

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 days ago

        That is the headline.

        Who’s on first?

        -–

        In all seriousness - I don’t know what Hayes expected. It’s not as if the NYT and other American media outlets became garbage yesterday. The media has published one pro-Trump article after another for years. A huge number of powerful people in the media loves Trump.

        • the rizzler@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          7 days ago

          no i just mean how else are they supposed to say it? like i can’t imagine a more neutral or evenhanded way to put it

          • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            7 days ago

            Liberals don’t want evenhanded. They badly want the Times to be theirs and the headline to be a pontification of liberal belief with praise of the shining City on Hill crap. I know that’s impossible. There’s no space for that in a headline! But Trump has made the libs insane.

            I don’t even know what’s in the article. It might even have tepid criticism.

            • the rizzler@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              oh i get it now. they can’t stand reading one sentence that isn’t about the dang cheeto in the white house. well put comrade

              • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 days ago

                If the NYT wanted to they could’ve written…

                BREAKING NEWS: In an unprecedented move Trump renames DoD to Department of War

                I wonder if that would have mollified the libs. My hunch is mostly - maybe? They’d fixate on the exact wording but Hayes would have only gotten - I dunno - ~20% as many likes. In any case - it’s surreal to hear the libs whining and moaning about this as if it was equivalent to Trump’s extra-judicial executions of 11 people on the open ocean that was not only illegal but in addition he was too fucking lazy to create even a laughable legal justification before he did it. He just did it. And that seems pretty ominous.

                • the rizzler@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  as if it was equivalent to Trump’s extra-judicial executions of 11 people

                  my initial instinct is that to them it is. mainstream politics has been cleansed of the majority of its substance as the parties edge ever-closer together. what’s left besides aesthetics? especially after the 2024 election, it seems that mainstream liberals have become more and more openly apathetic about the state of the world. their single issue is trump and everything he does is Bad™. their ideological framework doesn’t leave much room for such nuance

                  at least that’s my first thought. maybe it’s always been like this and i’m just too young to remember

                  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 days ago

                    maybe it’s always been like this

                    I don’t think so.

                    The US now is post-policy - intelligent policy anyway. The republicans want fascism and to make their enemies suffer. The libs want Trump to finally go away for good and for the US to return to what it used to be. My political memory goes back to Ronald Reagan. I first voted in 1984. I was a liberal for most of my life so that colored by thinking and clouded my memories. But my opinion from then to Obama’s first two terms - liberals did talk about policies and think about them a lot. That’s long over.

                    I know now some if not a lot of it was insincere. And with Obama’s first term American politics had already become a lot like reality tv or sports. Both “teams” want their team to win but just as importantly they want the other team to lose. Now they don’t even care about what a future democratic president with a democratic congress could do or might do. They just want to win the game.

                    The other day I watched bits and pieces of William F. Buckley on his show Firing Line. I watched him speak with Margaret Thatcher and Reagan. Over decades - he did 1,500 shows where he talked tediously and pretentiously episode after episode on policy. Of course - it was plainly obvious that his show wasn’t a debate show or even actually a news show.

                    It was a highly partisan effort cheerleading show to show conservatives were not only right about everything but more intelligent and more cultured too. He had such a weird affected and fake mid-Atlantic way of speaking. It’s kind of amazing to me Firing Line was on tv for that long. A chud would be bored and annoyed after just minutes of watching and listening to Buckley.

                    Trump broke the liberal brain. Just this morning after I woke up my half-asleep brain was thinking how simply the word “Trump” is a thought-terminating cliché for them. They consider it their duty to virtue hate the guy 24/7. On Bluesky I have feeds I made myself. So Trump gets his own feeds and I filter him out in my main feeds. I need long and ideally mostly Trump-free breaks at Bluesky. C’mon libs… Housing? Public transportation? Taxes? Any policy at all? Or mention the GOP once in a while! Trump is getting a gigantic amount of help!

                    Nope. It’s Trump! Trump! Trump! etc.

                    Plus - the feed site is a bit buggy so posts with “Trump” in them come through into my main feeds anyway. And memes are filtered out only if alt text is used and it often isn’t for anti-Trump memes. There’s no effort to be funny or silly. I do not need to see the nth tedious meme like “Trump grifted BILLIONS in just six months. LET THAT SINK IN!” It’s not just that one fucking man. American politics contains multitudes.

                    Sometimes lib post have only the male personal pronoun with no context. But it’s clear the post is about their bugbear bête noire. I see posts that make me laugh like “I can’t wait for him to die,” or “He broke the law! He’s a felon! Why isn’t he in jail!”

          • SevenSkalls [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            This is my question. I can’t think of how else to express that headline. It’s pretty straightforward.

            Is the idea that the headline should say something about how this is bad?